201–210 of 679 posts
Umm, just eat the plants instead? I don't get fake meat. It is a solution to the wrong problem. Make a small amount of meat sustainable and respectful of animal wellness. Then make the rest of your diet plant based. Done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well chocolate milk does come from brown cows, according to 16 million americans https://iheartintelligence.com/millions-of-americans-think-c...
I find it more likely that 16 million Americans decided to take the piss when answering that particular question, perhaps offended that such an obviously dumb question would be asked of them with a straight face. I would be.
A tangential topic - I really think that in general calling plant-based things "meat", a terrible idea. It does not promote plant-base diet or meat consumption reduction. It is trying to be what is not. I think it pushes away those who are on the cusp of moving towards plant-base foods. Why? Because the consumer is told it is "meat", so they will compare it to meat. They will compare these patties to a real, prime An…
> I think it pushes away those who are on the cusp of moving towards plant-base foods. I think you are completely wrong. People eat meat because they like the taste and the texture, but at the same time everyone knows that meat is produced by killing animals, and that it's much less sustainable than vegetarian food. If you want to get people to switch to meat alternatives, you have to keep everything that's great abo…
It’s just people completely missing the point. If you get fake meat close enough in taste/texture/price you’ll move a large amount of product. The high high majority of meat consumption is not high quality product, but the absolutely lowest quality possible. It’s so easy to swap out they meh hamburger patty you have at a bbq with a plant based one, be healthier, and have less impact on the environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well chocolate milk does come from brown cows, according to 16 million americans https://iheartintelligence.com/millions-of-americans-think-c...
I find it more likely that 16 million Americans decided to take the piss when answering that particular question, perhaps offended that such an obviously dumb question would be asked of them with a straight face. I would be.
A tangential topic - I really think that in general calling plant-based things "meat", a terrible idea. It does not promote plant-base diet or meat consumption reduction. It is trying to be what is not. I think it pushes away those who are on the cusp of moving towards plant-base foods. Why? Because the consumer is told it is "meat", so they will compare it to meat. They will compare these patties to a real, prime An…
> I think it pushes away those who are on the cusp of moving towards plant-base foods. I think you are completely wrong. People eat meat because they like the taste and the texture, but at the same time everyone knows that meat is produced by killing animals, and that it's much less sustainable than vegetarian food. If you want to get people to switch to meat alternatives, you have to keep everything that's great abo…
I think this is too generous. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the implicit message here is that people actually care about the animals and sustainability of meat farming.
My spouse is vegetarian and I'm whatever. I don't buy meat but if it finds itself in front of me I'll eat it. I have had the conversation of the horrors of meat production many times at the dinner table with a spectrum of people, and nobody changed their habits. Yes, this is anecdotal, and I'm willing to read a source and change my opinion if there is some evidence that people actually give a shit about the animals. As far as I can tell, it is all just virtue signaling at best.
I agree with OP. I think we would be better served in the long run creating good consumables that have the caloric density and amino acid profiles found in meats and encourage people to eat those instead of trying to replicate something we should be horrified about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of very healthy meat-avoiding people in the world. Malnutrition is also a problem in the world. Malnutrition from people eating fake meat? So far, not a problem.
>> Malnutrition from people eating fake meat? So far, not a problem. Because there aren't that many. For people eating a vegetarian or vegan diet, keeping well-fed is a real concern and not everyone is pulling it off. For example, the following article is about infant nutrition but some of its comments apply to adults: Vegetarian diets in childhood and adolescence : Position paper of the nutrition committee, German S…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered why we do this? How would our society be different if only well-to-do people could eat meat regularly? Would a regular guy be content with wealthy people eating steaks while jet-setting around the globe because of climate change? I think a populist uprising would occur almost immediately and we’d see heads on pikes with their decapitated mouths stuffed with cabbage for all to see. It would be supe…
This is nonsense. People elsewhere in the world pay 50% to 100% more than what Americans pay for beef. Removing some subsidies and making beef slightly more expensive would save money and people would just eat beef one day less/week.
The advantage here is that you're getting as close to the real thing as you can.. Actually there's no difference from the real thing at the protein level- though fats and things need to be added back from imitation sources to re-assemble to thing you're imitating.
This probably isn't overall cheaper today (vs soy, wheat, etc), but the processes is very inefficient and has a TON of room to be improved upon. At a large scale your inputs are glucose and some microbes. Fermentation does the rest.
It just so happens that's what we're working on at at Culture Biosciences. Shoot me an email if this kind of stuff fascinates you. We're hiring software and hardware engineers. satshabad@culturebiosciences.com
It really shouldn't be called "meat". It should be called plant-based protein or meat-substitute. The definition of "meat" shouldn't change because you press some soy to look like a chicken leg.
Yes, as long as this isn't going down the route of "consumers will get confused" by terms like "oat milk". People aren't that stupid and the arguments against using the word milk annoy me. I think it's a sign that people are changing their diet and the dairy industry is worried.
Well, calling plant mince patties "burgers" annoys me and I'm not the dairy industry, nor affiliated with it.
Can we leave the annoyance aside and have a reasonable conversation about it? Here's my concern: it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that everyone should eat less meat than they eat (or rather, not everyone; just the people in cough, certain regions of the world where "meat" is synonymous with "food"; that is really not the case everywhere in the world). But in that case, let's promote plant-based cuisines, like Indian or Mediterrannean, with dishes that can be cooked at home with cheap and healthy ingredients and that do not rely on the production lines of the same large agribuisenesses that are responsible for destroying the environment with industrial farming (which includes mass-produced meat- and plant-based foods).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definition of meat by merriam-webster: a: FOOD especially : solid food as distinguished from drink b: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)
Do I really have to find another source that somehow « counter » your post and give a « definition » of what meat is or how it is generally employed for? I mean, we really are there? If you make a barbecue party, do you discuss the new meaning of « meat » by the « I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about website »?
It's how the language works and I'm not sure why would anyone be against using the broader definition when it's useful.
I don't see anyone complaining about coconut milk and peanut butter.